This problem is directly related to the flooding at the lower end of the creek. If no water is coming down then you have salt water intrusion moving up stream and build up of sludge. If you go look at the end of Embarcadero you can see it. This flattens the bottom end at the bay and allows water to flood upstream during storms at high tide periods.
The lawyers need to coordinate with FEMA, the Water Quality Board, County of Santa Clara Flood Control, and Army Corps of Engineers who are working the bottom of the bay issues. Everyone who participated in the planning of the flood control needs to put this whole issue together.
This is more than an environmental issue - it is a legal issue affecting the downstream residents and businesses.

The divide and conquer strategy needs to end here.

@ resident 1

Thank you for your enlightening comments. It is amazing how broad the repercussions actually are to the things we do.

And why aren't they looking into the Regional Water Board's contention that flood abatement measures should start in the headwaters of San Francisquito Creek? Notwithstanding the current drought, provisions need to be made to divert floodwaters at the source during flooding. I can't see that Stanford or the Ecological Rights Foundation are even considering any cooperation with the efforts to reduce the harms of flooding on E PA, MP or PA. Such diversion might have the benefit of providing water for Stanford irrigation and providing water after the flood for the trout.

I am looking at the Santa Clara Valley Water District year 2013 mailing you get with your utility bill. It is providing direction on the management of water ways to prevent flooding. Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek are listed as designated flood control creeks for our area. Adobe has been rebuilt so that it is now a very safe creek. They bring in tractors to remove the build up of vegetation so there is good flow of water.

We know that San Franscisquito starts at Searsville lake / dam which needs the removal of dirt and sludge so it can contain water. We also know that Stanford needs to build some holding pools at the top for overflow.
Much has been done on reporting that trash needs to be removed from the mid and lower end. We have to keep the whole creek open and clean.

The problem for the people at the bottom is that since there is no downward flow of water there is a dirt and sludge buildup at the bottom which flattens the area. We have the upward transition of salt water, and during a storm with high tide the water can travel upward and cause flooding in residential areas.

There are a lot of agencies and a lot of vested interest in strategies both at the top and bottom of the creek. I think at this point there is enough attention on the matter that the creek has to be viewed as a total conservation effort top to bottom.

There are several major flaws with the Stanford statement reported in this article:

"There are no water diversions occurring at Searsville"
"There is little water in the creek either above or below the dam and there is nothing Stanford can do to change that, nor is the dam of any consequence under these conditions."

1) There doesn't need to be any diversions occurring from Searsville (to campus) for it to be dewatering or reducing flows in the creek downstream. The reservoir is nearly full right now, so Stanford has already captured upstream flows and is preventing this stored reservoir water from becoming flow downstream. Stanford has no bypass flow measures to release water from the dam for protected fish and wildlife, as multiple parties have pointed out is required by law.

2) Most troubling is this statement that "there is nothing Stanford can do to change that, nor is the dam of any consequence under these conditions." Nothing could be further from the truth. To start, Stanford has multiple intake pipes within the reservoir that CAN be used, along with the existing valves on the downstream side of the dam, to release flows captured in the reservoir to benefit fish and wildlife downstream. They could release water downstream right now, but they choose not to release flows downstream. Secondly, the dam and reservoir are of major consequence to downstream flows under these conditions. As noted above Stanford CAN release flows downstream even after the reservoir drops below the spillway elevation by way of multiple submerged intake pipes and downstream valve. In addition, the stagnant Searsville Reservoir causes the unnatural evaporation of huge quantities of water that would otherwise be available as flow downstream. Finally, there is flow entering Searsville, both surface and subsurface, that is not being release downstream, is being evaporated, and used to fill the reservoir from last summers drawdown of water to irrigate their golf course. By refilling the depleted reservoir each year Stanford captures and prevents flows downstream… this is especially problematic during drought years like this when few rainfall events occur and most is trapped in the reservoir with no bypass flow occurring.

Our group and others have been advocating for Stanford to undertake a Searsville study of alternatives and take a "reasonable approach" to finding a solution for 15 years. We hope the University will make the right decision to remove this unnecessary and inefficient dam this year. We also hope that all sides will utilize and convey the known facts when describing impacts caused by the dam.

Thanks Palo Alto Online for in depth ongoing coverage of this critical issue for our region!

Excellent response above. Since the creek is a listed environmental county
property I think the county should be exercising some requirements here since they have to work with FEMA on the downward portion of the creek.
Time to focus on the Santa Clara Valley Department of Water project manager for the creek.

The SJM reported that the SCVWD is going to let out the water on Anderson Dam because it is not up to earthquake standards. The dam will be rebuilt. Since we are on the fault line it is important to make sure that all of the systems can withstand a major quake.

I think that would be a good approach to the Searsville Dam since it is reportedly not working correctly. There has to be a higher agency that is responsible for the creek from top to bottom.

However - the US Army Corps of Engineers do not want to widen the bottom of the Guadalupe River in Alviso. Note that the Guadalupe river is a flood control project in San Jose but somehow turns into a different animal in Alviso.

I suggest you call up the SCVDW and talk to the project Manager for the creek. They are responsible from top to bottom so can maybe provide advice.

There is an excellent article on Searsville Dam in the SF Chronicle today - 04/09/14, Section E.2. It provides the numerous positions on how to approach this topic.
What is missing is the hierarchy of who is the agency with the most authority on this topic?
The Creek is officially listed as a SCVDW flood control creek and has a project manager appointed to the creek.
It is a FEMA designated creek for the lower landowners for flood insurance.
It is the border between Santa Clara County and San Mateo County.
Yes - it originates on Stanford property but it was there before Stanford assumed ownership of the property.
It is an asset for the State of California.
So why isn't the proper agency stepping up and taking control of the situation?
There is a hierarchy of who is in charge - and it is not Stanford to use the water to irrigate their golf course.

Another thought on this is that many Stanford employees live in the 100 year flood zone so are required to have flood insurance. SU employees are being hit with an large expense so the SU golf course can be watered.
Likewise residents of PA are required to have flood control insurance based on the San Francisquito Creek proximity and history. This is very wrong from whatever angle you look at it.

I live near Adobe Creek which has been updated and is maintained and kept clean. I do not see Adobe Creek flooding at this time. I still pay the flood insurance which is very expensive.

So that raises the question as to what part FEMA has in all of this - they should be trying to correct this problem based on the number of people that are adversely affected by this. A lot of money is being paid to a lot of insurance companies for flood insurance. I am wondering if there is some deal going on here. Put it on the table. Put it out there - too many people are affected by this. We already know that FEMA has no money at this time.

Articles in the SJM this weekend - there will be a El Nino this winter - projection by NOAA and SU Studies. In same paper is article about flood insurance which will have a rise in cost of 18%.
That foretells what is in store for everyone, including employees of SU.
This summer there needs to be a concerted effort to clean up Searsville Lake at the dam, create holding pools at the top of the SU property, and clean up the creek of overgrown vegetation.
PA weekly - please follow up on CC discussions with Stanford concerning this topic.

Article in SJM 04.23.14 concerning the Pinto Lake in Watsonville. Due to increase in sediment there has been an increase in the growth of algae which has a negative affect on the water released into the ocean as well as the animals and fish who are dependent on the lake water.

It should be noted that the growth of algae was a major negative effect in Golden Gate Park and they have invested in effort to remove the algae and control further growth.

SU's position on refusal to remove the sediment build up in Searsville Lake could possibly be the result of algae build up. That should be a topic of discussion with the SCVWD as well as other government agencies.

I would like to know the current progress in this long term litigation processing for the Searsville Dam.